Acharya Prashant explains that a child is, in a sense, almost one hundred percent automatic. The child has nothing separate from his automaticity; he is his bones, his muscles, his DNA. He has nothing to observe the whole process with, nothing that stands apart from his physical apparatus. Therefore, a young child, perhaps five or seven years old, has no capacity for self-observation or reflection. Then comes a point when the brain starts maturing enough, referring to physical maturity. Man is constructed in a way that his consciousness is dependent on the physical thing called the brain. So, the brain has to be ripe enough to be the seat of consciousness. If the brain is not ripe or is still very primitive, then consciousness will be forced to be primitive. One cannot have Buddha consciousness in an amoeba; an amoeba is bound to have an amoebic consciousness. Similarly, a child is constrained by the limitations of her brain to have a childish consciousness. Then comes a point when the brain is ready, and now there is free will, or at least the possibility of it. Until the age of eight or ten, nobody has any responsibility to be free of littleness. Until that age, you simply do not have the wherewithal to look at yourself, and therefore cannot be blamed or faulted. But after that, you are responsible because now you are capable. At the age of sixteen, if a youngster is behaving in utterly conditioned ways, then he is to be blamed, not the six-year-old. The sixteen-year-old is to be blamed because he now has the capacity for self-observation but is just deciding not to use it. Nobody is to be faulted for being conditioned, because we are born conditioned. We are not merely born conditioned; we are also born with a strong tendency to stay conditioned and gather even more conditioning. So, we must not blame ourselves for that. The blame lies elsewhere. You are not to be faulted for being born conditioned, but you are to be surely faulted for not being responsible for your liberation. Using an analogy, you are not to be faulted for perspiring, as everybody sweats, but you are to be faulted for not cleaning up. The little man is not to be blamed for being little; he is to be blamed for remaining little. This is an important difference. The great man is nothing but the little man who at some point says, "It's no fun remaining little." The existence of the great man, who was born exactly similar to the little man, puts the little man in the dock. If the great man could say that he doesn't want to remain little, why couldn't you? The presence of the great man castigates the little man. If no greatness were possible at all, then there would be no justification in pointing fingers at littleness. But greatness is possible, and it is materially proven in the shape, form, and figure of the great man. The charge sheet against the little man reads that the great man is also a little man who purposefully, deliberately, and effortfully decides not to remain little. If he can do that, why can't you? You are guilty of failing yourself and not living up to your own potential.
